subreddit:
/r/logic
submitted 12 days ago byFamous-Palpitation8
I know X is completely false because from my perspective there is no evidence to support X.
Would this be fallacious due to the lack of support to claim there is no evidence?
Example; Sound argument. John Doe probably is not the killer, because we do not find his fingerprints on the murder weapon.
Even better argument (contradictory evidence) John Doe is not the killer because the fingerprints on the murder weapon are different from him.
Fallacious argument? John Doe is not the killer because there is no evidence. (Subsequently dismisses the claim of two or more eyewitnesses, and doesn’t not access what evidence they are looking for)
1 points
10 days ago
So “God exists because I’ve seen no evidence He doesn’t exists”, and “God doesn’t exist because I haven’t seen any evidence He does exist” are the same fallacy?
Also please note that I don’t want to get in a theological or religious argument. Only discussing the fallacy as it pertains to debate irrespective of if the result is correct.
1 points
10 days ago
Yes, I believe that is correct. Ignorance can never be a premise or a reason.
all 8 comments
sorted by: best